United States District Court, E.D. Michigan
PETER C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
SGT. KARAZIA, et al, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD
L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Peter C. Taylor, a state inmate incarcerated at the Bellemy
Creek Correctional Facility, has filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and
he is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in this
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After careful
consideration of the Complaint, the Court summarily dismisses
is incarcerated as a result of his Wayne Circuit Court
conviction for second-degree murder and commission of a
felony with a firearm. Petitioner was a police officer who
shot to death an individual outside a roller skating rink in
Livonia, Michigan. Facts surrounding his conviction can be
found in the opinion denying his federal petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. See Taylor v. McKee, 2007 WL
4171260 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2007).
complaint names Sgt. Karazia, an employee of the Michigan
State Police Crime Lab, the Lab itself, and the “City
of Detroit Prosecutor's Office, ” as Defendants.
The complaint makes allegations regarding the misconduct of
the Defendants during the investigation and prosecution of
his state criminal trial. He asserts Karazia presented false
or mislabeled evidence. He asserts that the trial judge and
prosecutor did not allow the jury to take notes during trial.
He asserts that the Crime Lab manufactured false evidence
which the prosecutor presented to the jury knowing it was
false. He alleges throughout the Complaint that the
misconduct of the Defendants resulted in his unlawful
conviction and imprisonment. The Complaint seeks monetary
complaints filed by a pro se prisoner are subject to the
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000).
Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to
dismiss complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous
and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if
it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, when,
construing the complaint in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true,
the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in
support if his claims that would entitle him to relief.
Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197
(6th Cir. 1996); Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179
(6th Cir. 1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58
F.3d 1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).
alleges that the various actions by the Defendants resulted
in his unlawful conviction and sentence. Plaintiff's
complaint is barred by the favorable-termination requirement
set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
In Heck the Supreme Court held such claims to be
[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit,
the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor
of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must
be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.
Id., 512 U.S. at 486-87.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate
vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of a
prisoner's confinement in federal court. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973). Nevertheless,
the Court cannot convert this matter into a (second) petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. When a suit that should have
been brought under the habeas corpus statute is prosecuted
instead as a civil suit, it should not be
“converted” into a habeas corpus suit and decided
on the merits. Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497,
500 (7th Cir. 1999). Instead, the matter should be dismissed,
leaving it to the prisoner to decide whether to re-file it as
a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. Moreover,
Heck clearly directs a federal district court to
dismiss a civil rights complaint which raises claims that
attack the validity of a conviction; it does not direct a
court to construe the civil rights complaint as a habeas
petition. See Murphy v. Martin, 343 F.Supp.2d 603,
610 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Plaintiff has already been denied federal habeas relief, if
he wishes to pursue such relief again he is required to first
obtain permission from the United States Court of ...